The Jerusalem Temple in Luke-Acts

1

N H Taylor
Research fellow: The University of Zululand

Abstract
Luke-Acts was written during the period after the destruction of the
second temple, when, for most Jews, hopes for future restoration
were conceived largely in terms of rebuilding the temple and city of
Jerusalem and resuming the cultic life associated therewith. Against
this background Luke poses an alternative vision, in which the
divine presence associated previously with the voo , is seen no
longer as localised but as dispersed. The Holy Spirit manifested in
the life and expansion of the Church transcends and supersedes the
notion of sacred space associated with the Zion traditions.

1. INTRODUCTION
It was for much of the twentieth century a canon of scholarly orthodoxy that
Luke is the most gentile of New Testament authors (Conzelmann 1982;
Dibelius 1956; Haenchen 1971; Maddox 1982; Sanders 1987; Wilson 1973;
1983). This position is now a more debated issue in scholarship (Brawley
1987; Koet 1989; Tiede 1983), but the authors interest in and commitment to
the gentile mission is indisputably central to the narrative of Acts, and the
gentile mission is clearly anticipated in the gospel of Luke (2:31-32; 4:25-47;
7:2-10; 11:29-32). Yet the Jerusalem temple features prominently in both
volumes of this work. References to the temple can be explained neither in
terms of widespread Graeco-Roman interest in oriental cults (Fox 1986:64-
101; MacMullen 1981) and the particular reputation of the temple of
Jerusalem (Josephus, CA 1,198-99; 2,138; Cohen 1987; Schrer 1979:309-
14), nor simply in terms of the temple being the location of several of the
events recorded. The temple may on occasion be incidental to the narrative,
or simply a geographical point of reference, but it is nonetheless significant
that mention should be made of the it so frequently, and that key episodes
located elsewhere in Matthew and Mark should be located in the temple in
Luke. This is most conspicuously the case with the eschatological discourse,
located on the Mount of Olives in Matthew 24 and Mark 13, but in the temple
in Luke 21. The temple also features in the nativity and post-resurrection
narratives more prominently than in the other gospels. Allusions are never

1
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense in
July 1998, and a briefer version published as Taylor (1999b).
HTS 60(1&2) 2004 459
The Jerusalem temple in Luke-Acts
accompanied by detailed descriptions of the architecture or ritual system
which would satisfy the curiosity of antiquarian or eclectically minded readers
(cf Pliny, Nat Hist 5). While these factors could indicate that the temple is of
marginal significance for Luke, there are nevertheless passages where the
temple is integral to the narrative and to his apologetic purpose. References to
the temple in Luke-Acts, along with other central and distinctive features of
Jewish identity and culture, serve to define the continuing significance of
Jewish institutions in the light of the Christian Gospel, and the relationship of
the Church to Judaism, and therefore merit particular attention (Brawley
1987:107-32; Juel 1983; Tiede 1983). In this respect at least we need to
consider whether Luke-Acts was addressed to a (Diaspora) Jewish as well as
a gentile readership.
In the view of most scholars, Luke wrote his Gospel and its sequel, the
book of Acts, after the temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed (Conzelmann
1987; C A Evans 1990:2; C F Evans 1990:13-15; Fitzmyer 1981:53-57;
Marshall 1978:33-35; Schneider 1980; 1985; Taylor 2003a; contra, Munck
1967; Reicke 1972; Robinson 1976:86-117). It is often assumed on this basis
that Luke reinterpreted the traditions he had received concerning Jerusalem
and the temple in the light of the events of 70 CE. The influence of the events
of 70 CE on Lukan composition and redaction is disputed by Dodd, who
argues that allusions to Old Testament passages account for the differences
between Luke 21 and Mark 13 (1947; cf Bruce 1990:16; Fitzmyer 1985:1255;
Tiede 1983:67). Whatever the influence of the destruction of Jerusalem on the
transmission of the gospel traditions, Luke wrote at a time when the temple
was no longer a functioning institution, but one which nonetheless continued
to hold immense conceptual and symbolic value for at least the majority of the
Jewish people (Cohen 1989:214-31: Grabbe 1991:537-45, 592-95). During
the last quarter of the first century CE there would not have been the
resignation to the loss of the temple that became characteristic of most
strands within Judaism at a later period (1 Enoch 90,28-29; 4 Ezra 10,25-59; 2
Baruch 32,2-4; 68,5; T Ben 9,2; Josephus, BJ 5,19; cf Goodman 1992;
Longenecker 1991:40-157; Nickelsburg 1981:277-309; Schrer 1979). Rather,
there would have been a general hope and expectation, at least until the time
of Hadrian, that in due time and with changing political fortunes Jerusalem
would be restored as a Jewish city and the temple rebuilt, as had been the
case after the destruction of Solomons temple by the Babylonians in 587 BCE.
It has been argued that Josephus wrote De Bello Iudaico not merely against
this background, but in the hope that he would be able to secure the high
priesthood in the restored temple (Chilton 1992:77). If a Jew as well
connected to the Roman court as Josephus was at this stage in his career
460 HTS 60(1&2) 2004
N H Taylor
could entertain such imminent expectations, then we should expect that those
who could only reflect upon the prophetic traditions and pray for the
restoration of Jerusalem would expect a less imminent turning away of divine
wrath and a redemption perhaps less immediate and less to their personal
advantage than that to which Josephus aspired. Nonetheless we should
assume that Luke-Acts was written against a background in which the majority
of the Jewish people hoped for and expected the restoration of Jerusalem and
the temple in the foreseeable, even if distant, future.
The function of the temple in Jewish social, economic, political, and
cultic life, and consequently its significance in Jewish thought, during the
period up to 70 CE was complex (Dunn 1991:31-35; Grabbe 1991:537-45; E P
Sanders 1992:47-72). The temple was, for most Jews, the sole legitimate
location of their sacrificial cult, and accordingly a place of pilgrimage
particularly at the time of major festivals. The temple was also the principal
centre for the exposition and administration of Torah, and a source of
authoritative rulings on all matters of Jewish life and belief, however widely
these may have been observed or however vehemently disputed, or even
quietly ignored (Neusner 1983; Sacchi 2000; Sanders 1992:190-240; Saldarini
1988). In addition, the temple and activities located there formed a large part
of the economy of Jerusalem and the surrounding areas (Jeremias 1963:21-
27, 51-57). Underlying and at the same time being reinforced by these
aspects of the temple system was the symbolic significance of the sanctuary
for the Jewish people. The Holy of Holies was the symbolic centre of Judaism,
and, in some conceptualisations, of the cosmos (Ezk 38, 12; 1 Enoch 26-27;
Jubilees 8, 12; cf Smith 1978; 1987). It was also conceived as the earthly
residence of God, a notion inextricably linked with that of the election of Israel.
However literally or otherwise this was understood, and notwithstanding texts
in the tradition which acknowledge the inadequacy of the temple as a place of
divine residence, the symbolic significance of the sanctuary as a location of
the divine presence is not to be underestimated (cf E P Sanders 1992:51-54)
The temple was, in summary, the central institution of religious, political, and
cultural identity for the Jewish people. Its destruction therefore precipitated a
multi-faceted crisis for the Jewish people, one which went far beyond the
disruption of the sacrificial cult. Authority in the exposition of Torah was
diffused until reconstructed by the rabbis during a later period (Cohen 1984;
Neusner 1983). The notion of the temple as the inviolable earthly residence of
God was utterly destroyed (Josephus, BJ 5.219.439; 6.285-86). Those Jews
who revered the prophetic traditions would have been able to interpret their
experience in terms of previous occasions of divine judgement, and thereby to
have derived their hopes of eventual restoration (Grabbe 1991:561-64;
HTS 60(1&2) 2004 461
The Jerusalem temple in Luke-Acts
Longenecker 1991:40-157). Those who rejected the prophets, and whose
power had been derived from the economy of the temple, were those who
failed to re-establish themselves as a force in Jewish society without the
temple, and who ultimately perished (Cohen 1984; Grabbe 1991:463-554,
592-95; Neusner 1983; Saldarini 1988). Early Christian attitudes to the
temple, including those reflected in Luke-Acts, must be reconstructed against
this background.
Assuming a date during the last quarter of the first century, Luke-Acts
must have been written with at least some awareness of the politics of Jewish
reconstruction in Palestine, as well as of circumstances in Diaspora Judaism
at the time. The prominence of the temple suggests a conscious presentation
of a Christian alternative to the Jewish hope and quest for restoration of the
sanctuary and its cult, and to temple-oriented notions of divine presence,
patterns of worship, and ordering of daily life. Rather than affirming hopes for
the restoration of temple and cult, Luke expounds a view of the temple that
has been superseded by other manifestations of the divine presence, in the
person of Jesus and in the life and expansion of the Church in the power of
the Holy Spirit. Before proceeding to develop this point, however, we need to
consider whether it is possible to describe a single and coherent lukan
position on the temple.

2. TERMS USED OF THE TEMPLE IN LUKE-ACTS
Four terms are used of the Jerusalem temple in Luke-Acts. This immediately
raises questions as to whether a single portrayal of that institution is to be
found in the two volume work. The terms used are o voo, o itpov, o oi|o,
and o oo / o oyio. I shall identify their respective occurrences and
consider their specific contexts and significance, before attempting to reach
an overall position on the temple in Luke-Acts.

2.1 o itpov
The term used most frequently is o itpov, with thirteen occurrences in the
Gospel and twenty one in Acts. This term refers to the entire temple complex,
including the outer courts. Of the Gospel occurrences, five have Markan
parallels:

19:45 (Mk 11:11; Mt 21:12): the location of Jesus attack on the traders.
The majority of recent scholars believe that, historically, Jesus was
proclaiming judgement and destruction on the temple, and that the
popular description cleansing is inappropriate (Borg 1984:161-74;
Chilton 1992:128-30; Crossan 1991:355-60; E P Sanders 1985:61-76;
462 HTS 60(1&2) 2004
N H Taylor
Taylor 1999a; Walker 1996:270-72; pace, Casey 1997; C A Evans
1989). This intention is not expressed in the synoptic accounts, but
may indirectly be reflected in John 2:19. The significance of this text,
and the notion of the temple as a place of prayer for all nations, will be
considered further below:

19:47 (Mk 11:18; Mt 21:23): the location of Jesus teaching;
20:1 (Mk 11:27): the location of Jesus teaching;
21:5 (Mk 13:1; Mt 24:1): the location of Jesus destruction saying, in the
narrative frame of the eschatological discourse; in Mark and Matthew
the pronouncement is made as Jesus and his disciples leave the
temple for the last time;
22:53 (Mk 14:49; Mt 26:55): Jesus reference to having taught in the
temple, in the arrest pericope.

There is one occurrence of o itpov with a Matthean parallel, which probably
derives from Q (Fitzmyer 1981:507; Marshall 1978:166-67; Robinson & al
2000:28; Taylor 2001; Tuckett 1992):

4:9 (Mt 4:5): the location of the third temptation (second in Matthew), to
Jesus to throw himself from the temple pinnacle. Scholars are divided
as to whether it is Matthew or Luke who alters the order of temptations
in Q, with both Matthean (Catchpole 1993:16; Davies & Allison
1988:364; Dupont 1968:290; Fitzmyer 1981:507-508; Hoffmann
1969:209; Kloppenborg 1989:20; Marshall 1978:167; Nolland
1989:177; Robinson & al 2000:22-41; Theissen 1991:207) and Lukan
(Donaldson 1985:88-98; C F Evans 1990:256; Grundmann 1971:100;
Manson 1957:42-43; Schulz 1972:177; Schrmann 1982:218) orders
enjoying support. Reasons can be found to explain either order in
terms of the theology of the two evangelists (Taylor 2001), and in the
case of Luke this concerns an intention to bring the temptation story to
a climax in the temple.
There are six occurrences of o itpov in Luke without parallel in the
synoptic tradition:
2:27, 37: the account of the presentation of Jesus (2:22-39), related as
compliance with Mosaic law (2:22), is located in Jerusalem (2:22; cf 25,
38); the temple is implicitly the place where sacrifices are offered
(2:24), and is mentioned incidentally as the place where Jesus and his
parents encounter Simeon and Anna, neither of whom is a functionary
of the cult; derived from special Lukan material (C F Evans 1990:210-
11; Fitzmyer 1981:82-85; 419-20);
HTS 60(1&2) 2004 463
The Jerusalem temple in Luke-Acts
2:46: the location of the twelve year old Jesus discussion with the
teachers, after his Passover pilgrimage with his parents; Lukan
composition or derived from special Lukan material (C F Evans
1990:223; Fitzmyer 1981:435);
18:10: the location of the story of the Pharisee and the publican,
derived from special Lukan material, or possibly Lukan composition
(Fitzmyer 1985:1183-85; Nolland 1993:525-31);
21:37-38: the location of Jesus teaching, deriving from Lukan redaction
(C F Evans 1990:764-65; Fitzmyer 1985:1357);
24:53: the location of the disciples worship, at the conclusion of the
ascension narrative, deriving from special Lukan material or, possibly,
lukan redaction (Fitzmyer 1985:1586-87).
There are twenty one occurrences of o itpov in Acts:
2:46: the location of the disciples meeting after their reception of the
Holy Spirit, probably redactional but deriving from tradition, signifying a
claim to be the true Israel and therefore the rightful custodians of what
the temple represented (Conzelmann 1987:24; Haenchen 1971:193-
96; Roloff 1981:65-66);
3:1.2, 3, 8, 10: the location of Peters healing the crippled beggar,
derived from an unknown source (Barrett 1994:177; Conzelmann
1987:25; Haenchen 1971:201-202);
5:20, 21, 25: the location of the apostles preaching, in the context of
the persecution narrative; Lukan composition (Roloff 1981:100) or
deriving from an unknown source (Conzelmann 1987:41; Haenchen
1971:254-58);
5:42: the location of the apostles teaching and preaching, at the
conclusion of the persecution narrative, presumably redactional (Barrett
1994:299);
21:26, 27, 28, 29, 30: the narrative of Pauls arrest and ensuing events,
deriving from an unknown source (Barrett 1998:1018; Conzelmann
1987:182; Haenchen 1971:611-14, 617-18). Paul serves notice to offer
a purification sacrifice, and after a disturbance he is arrested, and
accused of having brought gentiles into the designated area
(presumably beyond the soreg barrier prohibiting progress of gentiles
into the temple; cf Josephus, BJ 5.193-94; E P Sanders 1992:61,72-
77). The gates of the temple are, pointedly, closed after Paul has been
escorted from there, and it is mentioned in the subsequent narrative
only in speeches relating events which had taken place there;
22:17-18: reference, in Pauls speech after his arrest, to his having
received a theophany in the temple, in which he received his call to
464 HTS 60(1&2) 2004
N H Taylor
proclaim the Gospel to the gentiles, Lukan composition or deriving from
an unknown source (Barrett 1998:1033; Conzelmann 1987:186;
Haenchen 1971:628-31). Brawley argues that the location of Pauls
theophany at the axis mundi is significant (1987:137; cf Smith 1987).
That his vocation to take the Gospel to the gentiles is located in the
holiest shrine of Judaism is at least as significant as the broader history
of religions conception. While the conscious or subconscious influence
of this idea is not to be disputed, what is important for the Lukan
narrative is not the mode of communication between God and Paul, but
rather that Pauls vocation to preach the Gospel to gentiles is rooted in
his Jewish faith and piety;
24:6: in the account of Pauls trial before Felix, deriving from an
unknown source (Barrett 1998:1092; Haenchen 1971:656-59), the
charge of attempted desecration of the temple repeated;
24:12, 18: Pauls denial of misconduct in the designated area, in his
speech to Felix;
25:8: in his speech before Festus, Paul denies misconduct in the
temple, Lukan composition or derived from an unknown source (Barrett
1998:1122; Haenchen 1971:668-70);
26:21: Pauls reference to his arrest, in his speech before Agrippa,
Lukan composition or derived from an unknown source (Barrett
1998:1144-45; Haenchen 1971:690-94).

Of the occurrences of o itpov in Luke-Acts, the majority undoubtedly refer
to the outer court of the temple, but at least Luke 21:5 would seem to include
all parts of the temple complex in the description, and Acts 21:28 implies
areas to which access was restricted. The sacrificial cult is mentioned
explicitly only in the presentation account unique to Luke (2:22-39), in the
context of the healing of the cripple by Peter and John (Ac 5:20), and of the
events preceding Pauls arrest (Ac 21:26-30).

2.2 o voo
O voo occurs four times in Luke, and twice in Acts. This term is generally
understood to refer specifically to the inner sanctuary rather than the temple
complex as a whole. One of the gospel occurrences has a Markan parallel:

23:45 (Mk 15:38; Mt 27:51): the account of the rending of the sanctuary
curtain at Jesus death, common to the synoptic passion narratives;
Luke differs from Mark and Matthew is relating the rending before
rather than after the moment of Jesus death.
HTS 60(1&2) 2004 465
The Jerusalem temple in Luke-Acts
There are no occurrences of o voo in what can be identified as Q material.
The remaining gospel occurrences are located in a single pericope, and
derive from a special Lukan source (C F Evans 1990:137-45; Fitzmyer
1981:309-12):

1:9, 21, 22: the location of Zechariahs offering incense, and of the
vision he received while doing so. This tradition is distinctive in implying
a kinship relationship between Jesus and John the Baptist, and that the
latter was a priest, even if Luke makes no explicit reference to this. He
or his source is, however, clearly aware that the priesthood in Judaism
was hereditary (Lk 1:5; cf m Qid 4:4). He must therefore have been
aware of the implication that John inherited Zechariahs priestly status,
even if he is silent on this. The fact that John is never depicted
functioning as a priest, and is later portrayed operating a ritual system
outside the temple, may not be insignificant (cf Webb 1991).

The Acts occurrences of o voo are distinctive in that they do not refer
exclusively to the Jerusalem temple, and on one occasion the reference is
specifically to pagan shrines:

17:24: Pauls speech to the Areopagus (17:22-34) in Athens, a Lukan
composition (Barrett 1998:825-26), possibly incorporating traditions
(Pesch 1986:121). Paul repudiates the notion of God living in earthly
sanctuaries. The principle is clearly universal in application, even if
there is an implied reference to local shrines in Athens, and would
therefore embrace the Jerusalem temple (cf Klauck 2003:81-95);
19:24: in the account of the disturbance at Ephesus, reflecting conflict
between aniconic Christian devotions and pagan idolatry, and the
economic interests of purveyors of the latter (19:21-40), reference is
made to silver shrines to Artemis (Diana), presumably souvenirs for
pilgrims and/or cultic objects for domestic use (cf Haenchen 1971:572;
Klauck 2003:102-10; MacMullen 1981:42).

The distinctive connotation of o voo, that of a divine dwelling place (Michel
1967a), is repudiated by the Lukan Paul. The use of the term, without any
disclaimer or qualifier, to refer to portable pagan talismans, as though no
different in principle to the temple in Jerusalem, would seem to imply the
strongest repudiation of the notion of divine residence in terrestrial
sanctuaries. The rending of the sanctuary curtain in the gospel Passion
narrative likewise implies a denial of divine presence there, or at least the
466 HTS 60(1&2) 2004
N H Taylor
withdrawal thereof at the time of Jesus death. It may be significant that,
whereas Mark and Matthew record the rending of the curtain immediately after
Jesus death, Luke records it immediately before, which may be intended to
convey the sense that the divine presence had already departed from the
temple before Jesus died. It is notable that, after the appearance of Gabriel to
Zechariah, an episode which inaugurates the events of the Gospel which
follow, voo occurs in Luke-Acts only in pericopae where its distinctive sense
is refuted. This is a point to which I shall return shortly.
In addition to the occurrences of voo, we should also note its
conspicuous omissions from the Passion Narrative. In Mark 14:58; 15:29,38
(Mt 26:61; 27:40) the accusations concerning the temple brought against
Jesus both during the trial and after his crucifixion are expressed using voo.
These charges are omitted from the Lukan Passion narrative, but reappear in
the context of the account of Stephens martyrdom (Brown 1994:435-37; C F
Evans 1990:835; Marshall 1978:847-48; Taylor 2003b; pace, Wilson
1973:131-32). In Ac 6:13-14 the term used is o oo o oyio. This text will
be considered shortly.

2.3 o oi|o
Oi|o is used three, or possibly four, times to refer to the temple in Luke, and
in Acts occurs in the context of Stephens speech. Two occurrences have
markan parallels:

6:4 (Mk 2:26; Mt 12:4): In controversy with the Pharisees concerning
sabbath observance (6:1-5), Jesus makes reference to Davids having
commandeered shewbread from the sanctuary at Nob (1 Sm 21:1-9).
This pericope implies some relativising of the purity system, and of the
distinction between sacred and profane, in relation to the temple and its
predecessor, the tabernacle. A similar attitude to the sabbath is
indicated. The reference to David could suggest messianic overtones
to Jesus overruling established cultic observances;
19:46 (Mk 11:17; Mt 21:13): Jesus citation of Isa 56:7 in the account of
his overturning the tables of the money changers (19:45-46). It is
noteworthy that, like Matthew, Luke omits from the citation any
reference to the gentiles as those who would come to pray in the
temple. It is arguable that this reflects a deliberate denial of this
eschatological role for the temple (J T Sanders 1987:34; Taylor
1999a; Walker 1996:63), but the omission may simply reflect the
historical situation in which Luke (and Matthew) wrote. The temple was
HTS 60(1&2) 2004 467
The Jerusalem temple in Luke-Acts
no longer standing, and could therefore not function either as a Jewish
cult centre or as a place of universal prayer. As Luke did not share in
the aspirations of the Jewish people for the restoration of the temple,
he could envisage no eschatological or ecumenical role for it.

There are two occurrences, one disputed, of oi|o in relation to the temple in
what is probably Q material:

11:51 (Mt 23:35 voo): Jesus reference to the martyrdom of
Zechariah, in which Luke is almost certainly closer to the original
wording of Q, though this is a section which both canonical evangelists
have reworked (Fitzmyer 1985:946-54; Kloppenborg 1989:112;
Robinson & al 2000:288; Taylor 2003a:298). Matthew develops the
tradition further in identifying the Zechariah murdered in the temple (2
Chr 24:20-22) with the canonical prophet. The same tradition was
developed further in the extra-canonical writings, culminating in the
identification of the murdered Zechariah with the father of John the
Baptist (Protev Iakobi 23-24; cf Vitae Prophet 15; 23). Luke, on the
other hand, does nothing to clarify the identity of Zechariah,
presumably retaining an original reference to the first (Abel) and the
last murder perpetrated in the Tanakh;
13:35 (Mt 23:38): Jesus reference to Jerusalems abandoned house,
an allusion to Jr 22:5. It is generally believed that Matthew, locating this
text at the conclusion of Jesus ministry in the temple, retains it in a
position closer to that it occupied in Q (Bultmann 1963:114-15; C F
Evans 1990:563; Fitzmyer 1985:1034; Grundmann 1971:287; Marshall
1978:573; Robinson & al 2000:422; Schneider 1985:309; contra,
Crossan 1983:345; cf Hoffmann 1982:172; Jacobson 1992:209-13).
The oi|o reference is ambiguous, and the allusion to the temple is
disputed (Brawley 1987:124; C F Evans 1990:565; Fitzmyer
1985:1033-37; Giblin 1985:42; Weinert 1982). The term clearly has
wider and more varied connotations, and a reference to the house of
Israel in the sense of the Jewish nation cannot be excluded (C F Evans
1990:565; Fitzmyer 1985:1036; Nolland 1993:742-43). In the same way
the city and people of Jerusalem can be included within the reference
(Giblin 1985:42; Marshall 1978:576; Plummer 1901:352; Weinert
1982), though not necessarily to the exclusion of the temple. The close
association between temple, city, and nation would seem to argue for
an inclusive usage in this text, as in 5 Ezra 1:33-34, where DOMUS
VESTRA DESERTA EST is followed by reference to lack of progeny. Given
468 HTS 60(1&2) 2004
N H Taylor
that oi|o has a definite architectural as well as a familial denotation
(Michel 1967b), it would seem most unlikely that reference to the
temple can be excluded entirely from the range of meanings (Baltzer
1965; Schulz 1972:346-60; Taylor 2003a; Walker 1996:61-62). The use
of uov of the temple is, however, unusual, and could be understood
as a denial of Gods possession, and therefore residence, there
(Walker 1996:61-62; cf C F Evans 1990:565). The connotations of
oitoi depend largely on the interpretation of oi|o. Insofar as this
logion refers to the temple, it clearly refers to desolation, and by
implication the cessation of the cult and of the authority vested in the
custodians and other associates of the sanctuary. The saying would
not necessarily have referred originally to destruction in the sense in
which this came about in 70 CE. Desecration such as effected under
Antiochus Epiphanes in 167 BCE and intended by Gaius Caligula in 40
CE (Taylor 1996) could also have been envisaged in the saying. In the
canonical context, however, this logion clearly reflects the destruction
of 70 CE. For Luke the fate of the temple had been sealed in the
ministry of Jesus (Nolland 1993:742; contra, Giblin 1985:42). Gods
presence has been withdrawn from the sanctuary (Baltzer 1965). The
institution and those associated with it were no longer under divine
protection, but vulnerable to judgement which would be meted out in
the future (C A Evans 1990:215; Plummer 1901:352). Despite the lack
of verbal parallels, this text could represent a Q logion corresponding to
the markan traditions of Jesus pronouncement of the destruction of the
temple (Mk 13:2,14; cf 14:58; 15:27; cf Casey 2002).

In addition to these occurrences the special lukan material includes one
possible implied use of oi|o:

2:49: In the pericope of Jesus discovery by his parents in discourse
with teachers in the temple, Jesus states that his parents should have
known that he was tv oi ou opo ou. The majority of
scholars interpret this in a locative sense, as a reference to the temple
(cf 2:46; Brown 1993:475-76; C F Evans 1990:226; Fitzmyer 1981:443-
44; Marshall 1978:129; Nolland 1989:131-32). It is also possible to read
the text as stating that Jesus was about his fathers business, or with
people belonging to his father. While the teachers are not associated
with any group hostile to Jesus later in the gospel narrative, they are
nonetheless associated with the temple. While depicted positively in
HTS 60(1&2) 2004 469
The Jerusalem temple in Luke-Acts
this pericope, it is unlikely that Luke would regard such persons as
distinctively godly or as uniquely meriting Jesus attention. The
preposition tv would be a possible but by no means obvious way of
referring to being with people; this construction in this sense is usually
found in idiomatic expressions. There is no suggestion that Jesus
ought to remain in the temple indefinitely, rather than return to
Nazareth. The plural oi would also count against any reference to
the temple in this verse. It is therefore most likely that Jesus is referring
to his fathers business, or commission to him, rather than to the place
in which he is located in this pericope.

O oi|o referring to a sacred edifice occurs in Acts only in the context of
Stephens speech (7:2-53). Whether the speech is a Lukan composition, or
derived from a source, is a matter of scholarly contention (Bihler 1963;
Haenchen 1971:270-99; Koester 1989; Richard 1978; Schweizer 1966; Taylor
2003b):

7:47: reference to Solomons having built the temple;
7:48: Stephens repudiation of the notion of earthly sanctuaries as the
dwelling place of God, with oi|o in the previous verse implied with
_tipooiqo (Koester 1989:80; Lohse 1974). While the principle is
universal, the context implies a clear reference to the temple in
Jerusalem;
7:49: citation of Is 66:1, 2 against the notion of terrestrial divine
dwelling places.

The occurrences of o oi|o in reference to the temple are all in contexts of
conflict, between Jesus and other Jewish groups or institutions in the Gospel,
and between Stephen and his accusers in Acts (Elliott 1991:208). Given that
oi|o in its literal sense denotes a dwelling place, in a sacral context its
connotations are clearly very close to those of voo . This is confirmed by the
usage of both terms in Acts in contexts where the presuppositions of
opponents regarding the temple as a place of divine residence are denied.
The gospel occurrences, while in contexts of conflict, do not necessarily imply
a denial of the notion of a terrestrial divine dwelling place, but the motif of
judgement is nonetheless present.



470 HTS 60(1&2) 2004
N H Taylor
2.4 o oo o oyio
Finally, consideration must be given to a more allusive expression applied to
the temple in some contexts in Acts. This is o oo o oyio (cf oyiou t
oyiov, Josephus, BJ 5.219), the terms oo and oyio appearing both
separately and together:

6:13, 14: reference to the temple in the accusations brought against
Stephen, deriving from an unknown source or other tradition, or
redactional (Bihler 1963; Haenchen 1971:270-74; Richard 1978;
Schweizer 1966; Taylor 2003b);
7:7: a clear reference to the temple by Stephen, although the adjective
oyio is omitted;
7:49: citation of Is 66:1, 2 by Stephen, parallel to oi|o in the
preceding line (see discussion above);
21:28 (bis): reference to the temple in the charges brought against Paul
after his arrest, redactional or deriving from tradition (Barrett
1998:1018).

Given the frequency with which oyio occurs in Luke-Acts, referring to the
Holy Spirit (Lk 1:15, 35, 41, 67; 2:1, 25, 26; 3:16, 22; 4:1; 12:10, 12; 11:13; Ac
1:2, 5, 8, 16; 2:4, 33, 38; 4:8, 31; 5:3, 32; 6:5; 7:51, 55; 8:15, 17, 19; 9:17, 31;
10:38, 44, 45, 47; 11:15, 16, 24; 13:2, 4, 9, 52; 15:8, 28; 16:6; 19:2, 2, 6;
20:23, 28; 21:11; 28:25) and to holy people (Lk 1:35; 4:34 [Jesus]; 1:70
[prophets]; 2:23 [firstborn, citing Ex 13:2, 12]; 9:26 [angels]; Acts 3:14; 4:27,
30 [Jesus]; 3:21 [prophets]; 10:22 [angel]), and to the Covenant (Lk 1:72), it is
particularly noteworthy that the temple is never designated as oyio except
by Stephen and Pauls accusers. oyio is, however, applied by Stephen,
citing Ex 3:5, to the ground on which Moses was standing when he received
the theophany in the burning bush at Horeb. Given that this is a quotation
from Scripture, a contrast between a holy place in the wilderness and urban
cultic institutions should not be unduly emphasised. Moreover, the temple is
referred to as oyio elsewhere in the synoptic tradition only in the Matthean
eschatological discourse (24:15; cf Mk 13:14; Lk 21:17). Furthermore, the
connotation of holiness is implicit in the other terms used, in particular o
itpov, so the scarcity of occurrences in Luke-Acts may not be altogether
significant. The polemical context of o oo / o oyio in Acts, however, is
not to be discounted.

HTS 60(1&2) 2004 471
The Jerusalem temple in Luke-Acts
3. A SINGLE CONCEPTION OF THE TEMPLE IN LUKE-
ACTS?
Given that four terms are used of the Jerusalem temple in Luke-Acts, and that
Luke is clearly dependent on sources for most references, the question needs
to be asked whether we can speak of a single, unified conception and
theological position vis--vis that institution. The occurrences of voo all
derive from sources rather than from the evangelist, and the same is true of
the more allusive, if all but synonymous, term oi|o. It is, furthermore,
unlikely that more than one occurrence of itpov is not derived from sources.
Where Luke is drawing on sources, he appears never to change the
terminology regarding the temple, assuming that he retains the original
wording of Q where Matthew has changed it. If, however, Luke is dependent
on Matthew rather than these sources (Farmer 1964; Goulder 1989), then he
does make some changes, but these are not of major importance. Therefore it
could be argued that, at the redactional level, there is no single conception of
the temple in Luke-Acts. However, some patterns are discernible in the use of
these terms, which would suggest at the least that sources have been utilised
so as to support the theological position of the evangelist. It has been noted
that voo occurs after the appearance of Gabriel to Zechariah only in
contexts where divine residency in the temple is denied and the notion thereof
derided. oi|o similarly appears only in contexts where there is conflict with
the Jewish establishment, though the status of the temple is not necessarily at
issue. itpov tends to refer in more general terms to the temple precincts
rather than specifically to the sanctuary area. While implying a notion of
sanctity, itpov is nonetheless theologically the most neutral of the terms
employed by Luke, and perhaps conveys a geographical rather than a
theological meaning and significance. While we need to proceed with some
caution in drawing conclusions on the basis of Lukes use of terminology, it
would nevertheless seem that some significance must be attached to the
patterns identified in the use of voo in particular, and also of oi|o.

4. THE TEMPLE IN THE KEY EPISODES IN THE
NARRATIVE OF LUKE-ACTS
Having identified the words used by Luke for the temple, their sources so far
as these can be established, and some aspects of their significance, we need
to consider the place of the temple in key episodes in the overall narrative of
Luke-Acts.

472 HTS 60(1&2) 2004
N H Taylor
Luke 1:8-22 (voo): the appearance of Gabriel to Zechariah in the
temple
As noted above, this is the only pericope in which voo is used where
the notion of divine residency in earthly temples is not repudiated. This
suggests that, with the events of the Gospel inaugurated in the
appearance of Gabriel to Zechariah, Luke understands the special
significance of the temple under the old covenant as having come to an
end. The next place of angelic revelation is not the temple, but the
home of Mary in Nazareth (1:26-38). In the subsequent narrative John
the Baptist is depicted operating outside and effectively in opposition to
the temple, possibly in an overtly priestly role (3:1-20; cf Webb 1991).

Lk 2:22-39 (itpov): the presentation of Jesus in the temple
While sacrifices would have been offered on such an occasion, voo is
not used. The relevant events concern not the cult, which is alluded to
only in passing (2:22-24, 39), but the encounters with the prophets
Simeon and Anna. The parents of Jesus are depicted as Torah-
observant, but the emphasis in this narrative is on the fulfilment of
eschatological expectations derived from the Isaiah tradition as
interpreted by Simeon and Anna, in which the former espouses
universalist as well as nationalist hopes.

Lk 2:41-50 (itpov): the childhood pilgrimage of Jesus to
Jerusalem at Passover
This passage is significant in confirming the Torah-observance of
Jesus family. While Passover would have been an occasion for
undergoing purity rituals and partaking of the sacrificial lamb, the
emphasis is on Jesus claim to divine sonship, and by implication to as
yet undefined jurisdiction over the temple. Christian appropriation of the
temple courts as a venue for meeting and proclaiming the Gospel in the
early chapters of Acts corresponds with this text.

Lk 4:1-13 (itpov): the temptation narrative
As noted above, scholars debate the original order of the temptations,
with the majority arguing that Mt 4:1-11 follows the sequence of Q. In
this case, Luke would be indicating a theological purpose in altering the
order of the temptations so that the sequence comes to a climax in the
temple. In this Luke foreshadows the progress of Jesus towards
Jerusalem in the gospel narrative, as his vocation is tested in three
HTS 60(1&2) 2004 473
The Jerusalem temple in Luke-Acts
eschatologically significant locations. Donaldson has drawn particular
attention to the progress of the shekinah in Ezek 43:2, as the glory of
God returns at the restoration, from the wilderness, via the Mount of
Olives, to the temple (1985:97). This would seem further substantiation
of the position taken in this study that Luke presents Jesus as the
earthly embodiment of shekinah in the gospel, and that in Acts the
divine presence is portrayed as dispersed with the spread of the
Church (cf Baltzer 1965).

Lk 13:34-35 (oi|o): the desolation saying
As noted above, the allusion to the temple is disputed. It would seem
unlikely, however, that there is no reference to the temple in this text,
though not to the exclusion of a wider range of meanings. It has been
argued that there is no reference to the destruction of Jerusalem in this
text, and that the abandonment of Jerusalem consists in being without
Jesus ministry (Giblin 1985:42). Even if tpqo was not in the original
text (cf Robinson & al 2000:422), however, readers would have
discerned the allusion to the events of 70 CE, and Luke would have
been aware that this inference would have been drawn. It is most
unlikely that Lukes original readers would have failed to discern an
allusion to this event in this saying. The desolation is not in Luke a
consequence of rejection of Jesus himself, which has not yet taken
place, but rather the consequence of repeated rejection and
persecution of the prophets, in continuity with whose ministry Jesus
pronounces judgement (cf Giblin 1985:41). In the prophetic tradition
judgement does not necessarily mean inevitable destruction, but the
pronouncement thereof aims and hopes rather to evoke repentance
(Jer 6:1-8; 21:3-14; 26:2-23; Mic 3:1-12; Zeph 3:1-8; 2 Macc 6:12-17).
Nevertheless, Luke was writing in the aftermath of the events of 70 CE,
and this text could therefore have been interpreted by his original
readers only in terms of this judgement having been meted out on
Jerusalem, and therefore as having been inevitable were Jerusalem to
reject Jesus as it had the prophets before him (Taylor 2003a).

Lk 19:45-21:38 (itpov, oi|o): Jesus attack on the traders, and
subsequent teaching and debating with the authorities in the
temple court
The emphasis on the temple as a place of prayer (Lk 19:46; 21:10; so
also 2:37; 18:9-14; 24:53; Ac 2:46; 3:1; 22:17) and teaching (Lk 19:47;
21:37,38; so also Ac 3:11; 5:19-20,42), with the sacrificial cult
474 HTS 60(1&2) 2004
N H Taylor
mentioned rarely (Lk 19:45; cf Ac 2:46; 3:1). Jesus is in frequent
conflict with established authority (Lk 19:45-20:8,19-40; so also Ac 4:1-
21; 5:17-40), which would seem to emphasise continuity with the
prophetic tradition of Israel. Unlike Matthew (21:14), Luke makes no
mention of healings by Jesus in the temple. This text includes several
pericopae, some of which require separate treatment.

Lk 19:45-46 (itpov): Jesus attack on traders in the temple court
This is a much briefer account than in Mk 11:15-17 and Mt 21:12-13,
and does not specify the financial transactions taking place. It is
notable that the citation of Is 56:7 omits the reference to all nations,
and that Jr 7:11 forms part of a prophecy of the destruction of the
temple. Arguably the omission of reference to all nations from the
quotation from Isaiah can be attributed to Luke's having written after
the temple had been destroyed, at a time when this text was incapable
of fulfilment. However, if, as has been argued in this paper, Luke wrote
against a background of expectation of rebuilding of the temple, then
his first readers would not have assumed that (Trito-) Isaiahs prophecy
could no longer be fulfilled. Lukes omission of the reference to all
nations therefore reflects his own understanding of the temple as
having no eschatological role. He does not anticipate any
eschatological fulfilment of Isaiahs prophecy of worshippers from all
nations gathering in the temple. On the contrary, he opposes any
expectation of such fulfilment.

Lk 21:5-6 (itpov): the destruction saying, followed by the
eschatological discourse
Whereas in Mk 13:1-2 and Mt 24:1-2 the destruction saying
accompanies Jesus final departure from the temple and the
eschatological discourse is delivered from the Mount of Olives, in Luke
these events take place within the temple precincts. While the final
recorded speech of Jesus in the temple, the eschatological discourse is
not intended as the conclusion to his ministry there, as 21:37-38
suggest a continuing if unrecorded teaching ministry in the temple after
this discourse. The expectation that the temple would be destroyed is
unequivocal, and there is no hint that this could be averted, or that a
new temple might be built.



HTS 60(1&2) 2004 475
The Jerusalem temple in Luke-Acts
Lk 21:20-24: the desolation of Jerusalem
The reference in Mark 13:14 and Mt 24:15 to the desecration of the
temple through the installation of an idol is replaced with a more
general reference to a siege of Jerusalem. The temple itself is not
mentioned, but cannot be separated from the siege and destruction of
Jerusalem. Irrespective of whether the differences between Lk 21:20-
24 and the account in Mark and Matthew can be attributed to Lukes
knowledge of the events of 70 CE (Taylor 2003a), it is clear that
scriptural allusions to the destruction of 587 BCE are employed (Is
63:18; Dn 8:13; Zch 12:2-3; cf Dodd 1947). While reference is made to
captivity and exile of the people, this point is not laboured or
embellished with allusions to Tituss carrying the cultic apparatus along
with his Jewish captives in triumph to Rome. This, it will be argued
below, is to avoid an impression that Rome has become the locus of
divine presence in place of Jerusalem. While the concluding phrase
o_pi ou iqpoooiv |oipoi tvov could suggest that Jerusalem
might one day be restored, as a Jewish city, when the time comes for
the gentiles to be judged (Brawley 1987:125; C A Evans 1990:313;
Marshall 1978:773-74; Nolland 1993:1002-1004), it is also open to
interpretation as suggesting that the destruction would be complete
(Fitzmyer 1985:1347; J T Sanders 1987:218). As the eschatological
discourse proceeds to recount the events immediately antecedent to
the parousia (21:25-28), it would seem more likely that any future
restoration of Jerusalem and the temple is precluded (cf C F Evans
1990:752). This does not necessarily imply irrevocable judgement on
the Jewish people (pace, J T Sanders 1987:218), but rather points to a
redemption of cosmic proportions which would not include but would
transcend the restoration of Jerusalem and its Jewish temple. For Luke
the role of the temple in salvation history has been completed, and the
building would therefore not be restored.

Lk 22:66-71: the trial of Jesus before Caiaphas
Unlike Mark (14:58) and Matthew (26:61), Luke makes no reference to
any accusations regarding the threatened destruction of the temple.
This despite the fact that Luke records Jesus having pronounced this
destruction (13:34-35; 19:43-44; 21:6), and having done so within the
temple and in the hearing of the populace. However, in omitting
reference to the temple here, Luke is able both to avoid the ambiguities
of a false charge and to separate the death of Jesus from the
destruction of the temple, as he continues in the crucifixion narrative, to
476 HTS 60(1&2) 2004
N H Taylor
be considered below. The accusations surface, in a somewhat mutated
form, in the account of the trial of Stephen in Acts (6:14). Luke presents
the christological issues as of central importance to the trial of Jesus,
rather than the fate of the temple. As noted above, Luke does not link
the destruction of Jerusalem directly with Jesus death, but rather sees
the death of Jesus in continuity with those of martyred prophets whose
message had been rejected. The judgement aspect of the destruction
of the temple is subordinated to Lukes conviction that divine presence
is no longer localised there but disseminated in the expansion of the
Church.

Lk 23:26-43: the crucifixion of Jesus
As with the trial narrative, all reference to Jesus prophecy of the
destruction of the temple is omitted (cf Mt 27:40; Mk 15:29). Even the
address to the women of Jerusalem in 23:28-31 makes no explicit
reference to the destruction of the city. Lukes separation of the death
of Jesus from the destruction of the temple becomes most apparent in
the account of his death.

Lk 23:44-46 (voo): the death of Jesus
The rending of the sanctuary curtain is reported before Jesus death,
rather than after as in Mk 15:38 and Mt 27:51. The significance of this
event is debated in scholarship. It has been argued that the curtain is
torn to open communication between Jesus and God, just as Stephen
was to see heaven opened before his death in Ac 7:56 (Sylva 1987).
The rending of the curtain, however, should not be separated from the
other recorded portent, that of darkness, which is clearly ominous. In
Vit Proph 12 the rending of the curtain is also an eschatological portent
(cf Brown 1994:1135-1136). There is no indication that Jesus dying
words are addressed to a God located in the opened and exposed
sanctuary. Rather, the torn curtain reveals the emptiness of the voo,
and in placing the exposure of the sanctuary prior to Jesus death Luke
indicates that it had already ceased to be a place where the divine
presence was localised and concealed. The departure of the shekinah
from the temple is not a consequence of Jesus death, and is therefore
not in itself an act of judgement. Rather, the emptiness of the sanctuary
reveals that the temple had already completed its purpose, and the
divine presence was already manifested elsewhere, in the person of
Jesus.

HTS 60(1&2) 2004 477
The Jerusalem temple in Luke-Acts
Lk 24:53; Acts 1-5 (itpov): the temple as venue for early Christian
worship and teaching
The indications that early Christian worship in Jerusalem may have on
some occasions been synchronised with the sacrificial routine of the
temple (Ac 3:1) is potentially significant, even if this is purely Lukan
supposition. However, there is no suggestion of Christians participating
directly in the cult until Ac 21:23-24, 26-27 when Paul and others
underwent a purification ritual. While the Christians are portrayed as
not having ceased to regard the temple as a place of prayer, and they
are depicted as continuing Jesus practice of using the precincts as a
place of teaching, this does not mean they regarded the temple in the
same light as did other Jews (cf Taylor 1999a; Walker 1996:297-99).
Rather, they claim Jesus jurisdiction over the temple in using its
premises for their own activities. Luke has not linked the destruction of
the temple to the death of Jesus, nor has he separated the temple from
the city and people of Jerusalem in his pronouncements of judgement.
Christians in Jerusalem are therefore under no obligation to anticipate
the destruction of the temple in their worship or in their teaching. This
does not mean that the apostles had forgotten Jesus proclamation of
the destruction of the temple, but simply that they began to preach the
Gospel in the same place as that in which Jesus had ended his public
ministry.

Acts 6:11-7:59 (oi|o, oo / oyio). The trial and death of
Stephen
A large number of critical issues surround this text (cf Bihler 1963;
Kilgallen 1974; Richard 1978; Scharlemann 1968; Taylor 2003b). It is
not necessary for the present purpose to rehearse all the debates
surrounding the composition of the narrative and its historical
background (cf Cullmann 1975; Dunn 1991:57-74; Hengel 1983:1-29;
Scharlemann 1968; Simon 1958; Trocm 1973). There is some
consensus that Luke has embedded a trial narrative, including
Stephens speech, into a more original account of Stephens having
been murdered by a lynch mob. It is noteworthy that Stephen does not
repeat or explicitly refute the charges on which he is arraigned in the
narrative frame. He is at the very least critical of some conceptions of
the temple (Dunn 1991:63-67; Taylor 2003b; pace, Brawley 1987:121-
23; Hill 1992:67-101), although there is debate as to what precisely the
thrust of his critique is. While some scholars draw attention to a
dichotomy between the tabernacle in the wilderness and the temple in
478 HTS 60(1&2) 2004
N H Taylor
Jerusalem (Koester 1989; Simon 1951), the notion of divine residence
in earthly structures which Stephen attacks in 7:48 would apply to both,
except in that the temple is immobile and significance is therefore
attached to its site as well as its buildings (cf Smith 1978; 1987;
Brawley 1987:127-132). In this respect Stephen stands in continuity
with the prophetic tradition, as reflected both in the Deuteronomistic
History and in the classical Prophets (1 Ki 8:27; Is 66:1-2). Irrespective
of whether divine residence was conceptualised in literal terms (cf E P
Sanders 1992:51-54), any challenge to the notion would have been
offensive to those who believed the temple to have been built on a
uniquely sacred site, and to those whose economic and political power
were derived from the temple and its cult. Shiloh, the traditional final
resting place of the tabernacle, had been destroyed, as had the temple
built by Solomon; the destruction of the former being cited by Jeremiah
in warning of the destruction of the latter (Jr 7:12-15; 26:4-9; cf Ps
78:60). This in principle leaves Herods temple vulnerable to divine
judgement and destruction, although Stephen makes no mention of the
destruction of previous edifices which had been regarded as divine
dwelling places (cf Kilgallen 1976). Stephens speech cannot be
understood as a refutation of the charge that he had claimed that Jesus
would destroy the temple, and would be consistent with an implied
affirmation that the temple would be destroyed (Taylor 2003b). Given
that the reader is in no doubt that Jesus had proclaimed the destruction
of the temple, there can be little doubt that Stephens speech, if not a
denunciation of the temple, at the very least rejects the notion of the
temple as a divine residence and prepares for Lukes account of the
dissemination of the divine presence with the spread of the Church
which follows Stephens death (cf Baltzer 1965; Koester 1989:98;
Scharlemann 1968).

5. THE TEMPLE AND THEOLOGICAL MOTIFS IN LUKE-
ACTS
Before reaching any conclusions on the significance of the temple in Luke-
Acts, it would be useful to consider it in the context of other theological motifs
found in the Gospel and the Lukan account of the early Church. The most
important of these, perhaps, are divine providence, the manifestation and
inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the spread of the Church from Jerusalem to
Rome, including gentiles as well as Jews in the process (Conzelmann 1982;
OToole 1984; Squires 1993; Tiede 1983). Rome, however, does not inherit
the position forfeited by Jerusalem, and it is arguable that the line of
HTS 60(1&2) 2004 479
The Jerusalem temple in Luke-Acts
geographical expansion chosen by Luke is influenced more by his interest in
Paul than by any theological significance attached to Rome (Brawley 1987:28-
50). While Luke focuses on one direction in the spread of Christianity, there is
no suggestion that the imperial city becomes the centre of the Church. It is
perhaps significant that, by the time Luke wrote the Gospel and Acts, Titus
had destroyed Jerusalem and taken such treasures and apparatus of the
temple as could be salvaged from the flames to Rome in triumph (Josephus,
BJ 7.148-52). Luke makes no allusion to this, and does not exploit the
conveying of cultic apparatus from Jerusalem to Rome to support any theme
of Acts. While the narrative ends some years before these events (cf Jewett
1979; Knox 1954; Taylor 1992), they would nonetheless have been known to
the first readers of the work. Had Luke wished to intimate that Rome had
inherited the centrality and symbolic significance of Jerusalem, he could have
worked some allusion to the triumph of Titus into his gospel eschatological
discourse, and drawn on motifs from the closing chapters of the Deuteronomic
History and the prophetic corpus in doing so (cf Brandon 1961). However, I
would suggest that this is an impression Luke consciously and quite
deliberately avoids. The narrative includes two quite emphatic denials of the
notion of localised divine presence, delivered by Stephen and Paul, before the
latter reaches Rome (Ac 7:48; 17:24). While the narrative of Acts implicitly
recognises Rome as the centre of the empire, and of the world in which the
first Christians lived, the notion of divine presence is expressed not in terms of
residency and centrality, but in the Holy Spirit manifest in the life and growth
of the Church. The spread of the Church is not conceived as having been in
one direction only, Lukes interest in the more general expansion of
Christianity can be illustrated from the diversity of witnesses at Pentecost (Ac
2:8-11) and the encounter between Philip and the Ethiopian official (Ac 8:26-
40), even if the narrative focuses predominantly on the route from Jerusalem
to Rome. A sacred site as the definitive place of communication between
humanity and God has become redundant with the ministry of Jesus (cf
Brawley 1987:119-20; Baltzer 1965). Localisation of the divine presence in the
narrative of Luke-Acts effectively ends with the appearance of Gabriel to
Zechariah at the commencement (Lk 1:8-22), and the negation or termination
of divine presence is confirmed through the rending of the sanctuary curtain,
exposing the emptiness of the voo, at the crucifixion of Jesus, but before his
death (Lk 23:45). The ending of the localisation of the divine presence in the
sanctuary with the coming of John the Baptist may be reinforced by his not
following his father in temple service. Rather, John functions outside the
official cult, offering teaching and a ritual system which can in at least some
ways be understood as an alternative to the temple cult (Lk 3:1-20; cf
480 HTS 60(1&2) 2004
N H Taylor
Hollenbach 1979; Horsley & Hanson 1987:176-81; Kraeling 1951; Scobie
1964; Webb 1991). Furthermore, Johns role is explicitly associated in Luke-
Acts with preparation for the coming of Jesus and the manifestation of the
Holy Spirit in the Church (Lk 3:16; Ac 1:5, 22; 10:37; 11:16; 13:24, 25; 19:4).
Thereafter, both the appearances of the resurrected Jesus in Luke 24 and the
empowerment by the Holy Spirit of the followers of Jesus in Acts 2 manifest
the dissemination of the divine presence (Baltzer 1965). With the coming of
John the Baptist the temple ceases to function as the locus of divine presence
on earth. Jesus becomes the primary manifestation of divine presence during
his ministry, but the status of the temple as divine residence is not refuted until
the moment of Jesus death. However, it is noteworthy that, whereas Matthew
and Mark record the rending of the veil immediately after the death of Jesus
(Mt 27:50-51; Mk 15:37-38), in Luke it precedes Jesus death. For Luke the
status of the temple as divine residence has already ended with the
commencement of the Gospel, and is not brought about by the death of
Jesus.

6. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, therefore, I wish to argue that Lukes presentation of the temple
is to be located in the context of Jewish and Christian reconstruction during
the period after the Roman-Jewish war of 66-70 CE. Particularly through his
use of voo, Luke suggests that the divine presence traditionally associated
with the sanctuary of the temple is no longer localised in Jerusalem, or for that
matter in any other sanctuary. The shekinah had ceased to be located
exclusively in the temple with the beginning of the Gospel, and the Jewish
sanctuary had accordingly ceased to fulfil its function long before its
destruction; it had been exposed as an empty shell at the death of Jesus. In
Acts, divine presence has come to be manifested in and through the Holy
Spirit in the life of the Church. The fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the
temple do not represent the triumph of paganism and the Roman gods, but
simply confirms that the temple is no longer the locus of divine presence. The
restoration of Gods presence among the Jewish people is therefore to be
sought not through aspiring to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, but in
conversion to the Christian gospel and receiving baptism and the
empowerment of the Holy Spirit, and participating in the dissemination of the
Gospel and spread of divine presence throughout the world.
If this hypothesis is correct, it would have implications for what has
become a canon of scholarly consensus that Luke-Acts is addressed primarily
to Gentiles. Even if the author has a primarily gentile readership in mind, he is
deeply concerned with the issue of the continuing validity of Jewish
HTS 60(1&2) 2004 481
The Jerusalem temple in Luke-Acts
institutions, and, by implication at least, posits a path to salvation for the
Jewish people apart from the temple and its cult. Luke is undoubtedly
concerned that gentile Christians should recognise their path to salvation as
lying outside the boundaries of Judaism, even if deriving therefrom, and may
for that reason wish to reassure them that the destruction of the temple had
no implications for them. However, the possibility needs to be considered that
Luke may wish to offer to Jewish readers a sense that the temple had lost its
significance before it had been destroyed, and that a new path to salvation
had already been established in Christ. Rather than seek the restoration of
Jerusalem, Jewish readers of Luke-Acts should embrace the diffusion of
divine presence throughout the gentile world in the life and mission of the
Christian Church.

Works Consulted:
Baltzer, K 1965. The meaning of the temple in the Lukan writings. HTR 58, 263-77.
Barrett, C K 1994-1998. The acts of the apostles. Edinburgh: Clark.
Bihler, J 1963. Die Stephanusgeschichte. Mnchen: Hber.
Borg, M J 1984. Conflict, holiness and politics in the teaching of Jesus. New York:
Mellen.
Brandon, S G F 1961. The date of the Markan gospel. NTS 7, 126-41.
Brawley, R L 1987. Luke-Acts and the Jews. Atlanta, GA: Scholars.
Brown, R E 1993. The birth of the Messiah. New York: Doubleday.
Brown, R E 1994. The death of the Messiah. New York: Doubleday.
Bruce, F F 1990. The Acts of the Apostles. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Bultmann, R K 1963. History of the synoptic tradition. Oxford: Blackwell.
Casey, P M 1997. Culture and historicity: the cleansing of the temple. CBQ 59, 306-
32.
Catchpole, D R 1993. The quest for Q. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Chilton, B D 1992. The temple of Jesus. University Park, PA: University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Cohen, S J D 1984. The significance of Yavneh. HUCA 55, 27-53.
Cohen, S J D 1987. Respect for Judaism by gentiles in the writings of Josephus.
HTR 80, 409-30.
Cohen, S J D 1989. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.
Conzelmann, H G 1982. The theology of Saint Luke. London: SCM.
Conzelmann, H G 1987. Acts of the Apostles. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.
Crossan, J D 1983. In fragments. San Francisco, CA: Harper.
Crossan, J D 1991. The historical Jesus. San Francisco, CA: Harper.
Cullmann, O 1975. Von Jesus zum Stephanuskreis und zum Johannesevangelium,
in Ellis, E E & Grsser, E (ed), Jesus und Paulus, 44-56. Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Davies, W D & Allison, D C 1988-1997. The Gospel according to Saint Matthew.
Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Dibelius, M F 1956. Studies in the Acts of the Apostles. London: SCM.
482 HTS 60(1&2) 2004
N H Taylor
Dodd, C H 1947. The fall of Jerusalem and the abomination of desolation. JRS 37,
47-54.
Donaldson, T L 1985. Jesus on the mountain. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Dunn, J D G 1991. The partings of the ways. London: SCM.
Dupont, J 1968. Les tentations Jsu au desert. Brugge: Brouwer.
Elliott, J H 1991. Temple versus Household in Luke-Acts, in Neyrey, J H (ed), The
social world of Luke-Acts, 111-140. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Evans, C A 1989. Jesus action in the temple, CBQ 51, 237-70.
Evans, C A 1990. Luke. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.
Evans, C F 1990. Saint Luke. London: SCM.
Farmer, W R 1964. The synoptic problem. London: SCM.
Fitzmyer, J A 1981-1985. The Gospel according to Luke. New York: Doubleday.
Fox, R L 1986. Pagans and Christians. London: Viking.
Giblin, C H 1985. The destruction of Jerusalem according to Lukes gospel. Rome:
PBI.
Goodman, M D 1992. Diaspora reactions to the destruction of the Temple, in Dunn, J
D G (ed), Jews and Christians, 27-38. Tbingen: Mohr.
Goulder, M D 1989. Luke a new paradigm. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Grabbe, L L 1991. Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian. London: SCM.
Grundmann, W 1971. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Berlin: Evangelische.
Haenchen, E 1971. The Acts of the Apostles. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.
Hengel, M 1983. Between Jesus and Paul. London: SCM.
Hill, C C 1992. Hellenists and Hebrews. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
Hoffmann, P 1969. Die Versuchungsgeschichte in der Logienquelle. BZ 13, 207-23.
Hoffmann, P 1982. Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle. Mnster: Aschendorff.
Hollenbach, P J 1979. Social aspects of John the Baptizers preaching ministry in the
context of Palestinian Judaism. ANRW 19, 850-75.
Horsley, R A & Hanson, J S 1987. Bandits, prophets and messiahs. San Francisco,
CA: Harper.
Jacobson, A D 1992. The first gospel. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge.
Jeremias, J 1963. Jerusalem in the time of Jesus. London: SCM.
Jewett, R 1979. Dating Pauls life. London: SCM.
Juel, D A 1983. Luke-Acts: The promise of history. London: SCM.
Kilgallen, J J 1976. The Stephen speech. Rome: PBI.
Klauck, H-J 2003. Magic and paganism in early Christianity. Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress.
Kloppenborg, J S 1989. Q parallels. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge.
Knox, J 1954. Chapters in a life of Paul. London: SCM.
Koester, C R 1989. The dwelling of God. Wilmington. DE: Glazier.
Koet, B J 1989. Five studies on interpretation of Scripture in Luke-Acts. Leuven:
Peeters.
Kraeling, C H 1951. John the Baptist. New York, NY: Scribner.
Lohse, E 1974. s v _tip, _tipooiqo. TDNT 9, 424-37.
Longenecker, B W 1991. Eschatology and the covenant. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press.
MacMullen, R 1981. Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven, CN: Yale
University Press.
Maddox, R 1982. The purpose of Luke-Acts. Edinburgh: Clark.
HTS 60(1&2) 2004 483
The Jerusalem temple in Luke-Acts
Manson, T W 1957. The sayings of Jesus. London: SCM.
Marshall, I H 1978. Commentary on Luke. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Michel, O 1967a. s v voo. TDNT 4, 880-90.
Michel, O 1967b. s v oi|o, oi|io. TDNT 5, 119-59.
Munck, J 1967. The Acts of the Apostles. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Neusner, J 1983. Formative Judaism. Chico, CA: Scholars.
Nickelsburg, G W E 1981. Jewish literature between the Bible and the Mishnah.
London: SCM.
Nolland, J C 1989-1993. Luke. Waco, TX: Word.
O'Toole, R F 1984. The unity of Lukes theology. Wilmington, DE: Glazier.
Pesch, R 1986. Die Apostelgeschichte. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener.
Plummer, A 1901. A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to
S Luke. Edinburgh: T&T Clark.
Reicke, B I 1972. Synoptic prophecies on the destruction of Jerusalem, in Aune, D E
(ed), Studies in the New Testament and early Christian literature, 121-134.
Leiden: Brill.
Richard, E E 1978. Acts 6:1-8:4. The authors method of composition. Missoula, MT:
Scholars.
Robinson, J A T 1976. Redating the New Testament. London: SCM.
Robinson, J M & al. 2000. The critical edition of Q. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress.
Roloff, J.1981. Die Apostelgeschichte. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Sacchi, P 2000. The history of the second temple period. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press.
Saldarini, A J 1988. Pharisees, scribes, and Sadducees in Palestinian society.
Wilmington, DE: Glazier.
Sanders, E P 1985. Jesus and Judaism. London: SCM.
Sanders, E P 1992. Judaism: practice and belief 63 BCE-66 CE. London: SCM.
Sanders, J T 1987. The Jews in Luke-Acts. London: SCM.
Scharlemann, M H 1968. Stephen: A singular saint. Rome: PBI.
Schneider, G 1985. Das Evangelium nach Lukas. Bonn: Hanstein.
Schneider, G 1980-1982. Die Apostelgeschichte. Freiburg: Herder.
Schulz, S 1972. Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten. Zrich: Benziger.
Schrer, E et al 1979. The Jewish people in the age of Jesus Christ. Edinburgh:
Clark.
Schrmann, H 1982. Das Lukasevangelium. Freiburg: Herder.
Schweizer, E 1966. Concerning the speeches in Acts, in Keck, L E & Martyn, J L
(ed), Studies in Luke-Acts, 208-216. Nashville, TN: Abingdon.
Scobie, C H H 1964. John the Baptist. London: SCM.
Simon, M 1951. Saint Stephen and the Jerusalem temple. JEH 2, 127-42.
Simon, M 1958. St Stephen and the Hellenists in the Jerusalem church. London:
Longman.
Smith, J Z 1978. Map is not territory. Leiden: Brill.
Smith, J. Z 1987. To take place. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Squires, J T 1993. The plan of God in Luke-Acts. Cambridge: CUP.
Sylva, D D 1987. The meaning and function of Acts 7: 46-50. JBL 106, 261-75.
Taylor, N H 1992. Paul, Antioch and Jerusalem. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
484 HTS 60(1&2) 2004
N H Taylor
Taylor, N H 1996. Palestinian Christianity and the Caligula Crisis. JSNT 61, 101-24;
62, 13-41.
Taylor, N H 1999a. Jerusalem and the temple in early Christian life and teaching.
Neotestementica 33, 445-461.
Taylor, N H 1999b. Luke-Acts and the temple, in Verheyden, J (ed), The Unity of
Luke-Acts, 409-421. Leuven: Peeters.
Taylor, N H 2001. The temptation of Jesus on the mountain (Mt 4:8-10). JSNT 83,
27-49.
Taylor, N H 2003a. The destruction of Jerusalem and the transmission of the
synoptic eschatological discourse. HTS 59, 283-311.
Taylor, N H 2003b. Stephen, the temple, and early Christian eschatology, Revue
Biblique 110, 62-85.
Theissen, G 1991. The gospels in context. Edinburgh: Clark.
Tiede, D L 1983. Prophecy and history in Luke-Acts. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress.
Trocm, E P 1975. The formation of the gospel according to Mark. London: SPCK.
Tuckett, C M 1992. The temptation narrative in Q, in van Segbroeck, F et al (ed), The
Four Gospels, 479-507. Leuven: Peeters.
Walker, P W L 1996. Jesus and the holy city. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
Webb, R L 1991. John the baptizer and prophet. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.
Weinert, F D 1982. Luke, the temple, and Jesus saying about Jerusalems
abandoned house. CBQ 44, 68-76.
Wilson, S G 1973. The gentiles and the gentile mission in Luke-Acts. Cambridge:
CUP.
Wilson, S G 1983. Luke and the Law. Cambridge: CUP.
HTS 60(1&2) 2004 485